Please scroll down or click on the links below to read about this process.
(1) Promotion Flowchart: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor
(2) Steps: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position
(3) Dossier Checklist: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position
(4) Dossier Sample
(5) Dossier Instructions
(6) Suggested Timeline for Standard Academic-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor
(7) Suggested Timeline for Calendar-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor
Note: SEAS follows the same policies as the FAS divisions in tenure reviews. Because SEAS has its own organizational structure as a School within the FAS, the SEAS individuals who perform tenure-review tasks differ at times from the individuals specified in the flow-chart below and in the processes outlined throughout Section 4A. Please see the “Note” following the “Steps” table in 4A2 for more information on SEAS process. You may also consult SEAS for further information.
(1) Promotion Flowchart: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor
(2) Steps: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position
|
Step |
Explanation |
1 |
Each spring, department chairs receive from the divisional assistant dean a list of faculty scheduled for review for promotion to tenured professor during the next academic or calendar year |
Note: Promotion reviews should ordinarily be completed by the end of the associate professor’s penultimate year of appointment. Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives. In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief. Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. During this one-year extension, the faculty member would be eligible for one semester of teaching relief. (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”) Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had seven years to work towards tenure. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way. Note: Following completion of the steps below, departments submit promotion recommendations no later than March 1 (for “academic-year” appointments ending in June) or October 1 (for “calendar-year” appointments ending in December). If these dates fall on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is the next business day. Note: This “Steps” table shows suggested timing for tenure-track faculty whose appointments end in June. The “Suggested Timelines” at the end of this chapter also show timing for appointments that end in December. |
2 |
Proximate to July 1 (for academic-year appointments), the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them of the official start of their review |
This letter, sent to the candidate close to July 1, informs the candidate that this is the year of their tenure review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1 (for academic-year appointments), and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook. Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for eligible candidates to notify their divisional assistant dean that, due to the pending birth or adoption of a child, they would like to receive the FAS’s automatic one-year appointment extension and review postponement that are granted to expecting parents. In particular, expecting parents whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than one month after September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) must notify their divisional assistant dean by September 1 (or the next business day) that they wish to have this automatic appointment extension and review postponement. For more on this policy, please see Chapter 3.H.3. (“For Tenure-Track Faculty: Childcare Appointment Extension and Postponement of Review Policies”) in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook. |
3 |
In July of the candidate’s penultimate year as an associate professor, the chair and the candidate meet to discuss the tenure review process and materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to provide all of their materials by September 1. Note: By the time the candidate comes up for promotion, the department should have had ample opportunities to hear the candidate present his/her/their research. If this has not recently occurred, the candidate should give a talk presenting his/her/their research to the department.
|
As a general principle in promotion reviews for tenure-track faculty, there is no formula at the FAS for the relative weights of research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship in promotion decisions. The FAS is looking for high-impact contributions in each of these areas, and “impact” can take many forms. The candidate’s materials include:
Just as the summary teaching chart provides a summary of the candidate’s teaching portfolio (see Step 5), similarly the candidate should, in the teaching/advising/mentoring statement, provide a summary description of the advising and mentoring work they did with undergraduate and graduate students, TFs, and postdoctoral fellows. The candidate should not just describe, but also assess and reflect on their efforts in teaching, advising, and mentoring. Because the FAS takes a developmental view of teaching, advising, and mentoring, the candidate should reflect on aspects of their professional progression and on how they have addressed any areas of concern. In the statement, they may discuss:
Given the often interconnected nature of teaching, advising, and mentoring individuals, the candidate is not obligated to discuss these three topics in rigid separation from, and in sequence with, each other. However, regardless of how the candidate organizes their statement, their discussion should still clearly maintain the distinctions between these activities, as noted in the definitions above.
This includes teaching awards, representative course syllabi, and a list of past and present undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral advisees and mentees (including those who have moved to another research group). The candidate may include informal advisees and mentees.
|
4 |
The chair requests divisional dean approval of a proposed review committee and, following this approval, appoints the committee |
|
5 |
The department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as an adviser and mentor of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows |
|
6 |
The committee considers all the gathered materials and the department decides whether to proceed with the case |
The review committee is under no obligation to seek clarification from the candidate on their materials.
|
7a |
If further review is recommended, the department requests authorization from the divisional dean to request external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the tenure review letter, the recipient list (see Sample Table), and, if the department chooses to send an initial inquiry (see Step 7c) before the tenure review letter, a draft of the initial inquiry letter Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October |
The tenure review letter (see the Sample Letters section of this handbook) should include:
The comparison list:
The recipient list (see the Sample Table in this handbook):
|
7b |
(Optional step, for departments choosing to solicit letters from collaborators or mentors, and/or “internal external” evaluators) The department submits to the divisional dean a draft of the solicitation letter(s) to mentors and collaborators and/or to “internal external” letter writers and adds these names to the recipient list that contains the arm’s-length external letter writers (see Step 7a). Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October
|
In addition to the required ten arm’s length letters, the department has the option of soliciting letters from past or present collaborators and mentors (whether they are at Harvard or other schools). In addition to the required ten arm’s-length letters, the department has the option of soliciting up to two “internal external” letters (i.e., from tenured faculty who are from other FAS departments, centers, or other Harvard Schools). “Internal external” letter writers, ordinarily, do not later serve on the ad hoc committee. As with the parameters for external letter writers, described in Step 7a, collaborators or mentors or “internal external” evaluators must:
The solicitation letter: Please use the template in Chapter 15, for soliciting evaluations from collaborators or mentors, or “internal external” letter writers. The recipient list: When adding the names of any collaborators or mentors or “internal external” letter writers, please keep these names separate from the required “arm’s length” external letter writers. |
7c |
(Optional step, for departments choosing to send an initial inquiry) In October, once the divisional dean has approved the review letter (for external letter writers) and/or solicitation letter(s) (for any collaborator/mentor or “internal external” letter writers), the recipient list, and initial inquiry letter, the department chair sends the initial inquiry to scholars on the recipient list |
The initial inquiry email (see the Sample Letter section of this handbook) asks recipients if they would be willing to write a letter, requesting their answer by a specific date.
|
8 |
The chair sends the tenure review letter (for external letter writers) and/or solicitation letter(s) (for any collaborator/mentor or “internal external” letter writers), along with the candidate materials, to all scholars who have replied affirmatively to the initial inquiry email (see Step 7c). If the chair has chosen not to send any initial inquiries, the letter(s) and candidate materials are sent directly to the scholars on the recipient list. In both cases, the chair requests receipt of letters by the end of December |
|
9 |
After discussing all of the letters, the review committee drafts a case statement; the tenured members of the department review all materials, discuss the case, and vote (January or February) |
|
10 |
After a favorable vote, the chair asks each tenured member of the department, including those on the review committee, to write a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS |
These letters express the tenured faculty members’ views on the promotion and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) and the ad hoc committee, as appropriate. (For inclusion in the dossier, letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.) |
11 |
The case statement is finalized by the department chair, for review by the divisional/SEAS Dean |
The finalized case statement, prepared and signed by the department chair and the chair of the review committee, for review by the divisional/SEAS Dean (see Step 12), should include the following sections. Please use the Case Statement Template [Case Statement Template (Tenure Reviews)] and Case Statement Checklist [Case Statement Checklist (Tenure Reviews)], to ensure that the case statement is complete.
Please provide a) a discussion of the guidance that the department gave the candidate in developing as a citizen, b) an indication of how the candidate’s service load compares to others in the department or field, to help calibrate the candidate’s contributions, and c) a discussion of the candidate’s impact in this realm.
|
12 |
The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent to the assistant dean for the division by March 1 |
The divisional dean/SEAS Dean and assistant dean will review the dossier, including close attention to the case statement. If the case statement needs further work, the assistant dean will convey feedback to the department, along with any questions or feedback about the other materials. Note: The divisional dean/SEAS Dean and/or their designee and the Dean for Faculty Affairs and Planning can ask for changes to the dossier at any time.
Note: While the dossier at this stage in the process used to be submitted to the ad hoc coordinator in hard copies, starting in Fall 2020 please submit this dossier electronically, as Harvard campus conditions due to COVID-19 continue to evolve. Hard-copy submission of the dossier and other materials may possibly resume at a later time, depending on campus conditions. Note: All electronic materials must be sent securely. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer (e.g., Accellion Kiteworks, encryption, etc.), which can vary by user platform. |
13 |
The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier |
The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS on the next step for the dossier, which can include the following:
Subsequent to CAP meeting and making its recommendation to the FAS Dean in a tenure review case, the divisional dean/SEAS Dean will provide high-level feedback to the department chair, outlining which aspects of the case looked strong and less strong. This can provide insight into CAP’s thinking, not only in a particular case, but in general, to help departments effectively prepare future cases. |
14 |
The President or Provost reviews the case |
This review usually, but not exclusively or necessarily, takes the form of an ad hoc committee, presided over by the President or the Provost. An ad hoc review is one aspect of the decision-making process. The President or Provost may also consult with internal and external scholars who are not involved in the ad hoc review to provide greater context for the President’s deliberations. In order to protect the candidate and the integrity of the process, all aspects of the President’s deliberations, including the timing and the type of ad hoc, are strictly confidential. If the President decides to convene an ad hoc committee, it is assembled by the divisional dean and the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity. The committee ordinarily consists of two to three active, full professors from outside Harvard, two to three active, tenured professors at Harvard (from a department other than the one making the recommendation), the President or Provost, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS, the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity, and the divisional dean responsible for the case. When appropriate, an external member may be a prestigious senior researcher from a corporation or research institute, a well-established practicing artist, or a renowned museum professional. The committee ordinarily hears from three to four faculty witnesses, including the department chair, the search committee chair, and other faculty. The candidate’s former undergraduate or graduate thesis advisors or postdoctoral advisors should not ordinarily serve as witnesses. Note: As noted in Step 7a, external letter writers who sent no, or little, response to a department’s request for a letter may be considered to serve on the ad hoc committee. In exceptional cases, the department can include in its ad hoc committee recommendations someone who has already submitted a substantive letter. |
15 |
The President decides whether to approve the promotion to tenure and announces her decision |
After evaluating all of the information gathered throughout the process, the President makes the final decision regarding all tenure appointments that are forwarded to her for review and writes a letter with her decision to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS. After the President has made her decision (whether to grant tenure or not grant tenure), the FAS Dean contacts the department chair to offer feedback that may aid the department in preparing for future reviews. Note: If, at any point in the review process, the department, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS advised by CAP, or the President determines that the case should not proceed, the department chair must notify the candidate in writing, with the draft letter to the candidate first approved by the divisional dean. |
16 |
If the decision is favorable, the tenure letter is issued by the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS |
The tenure letter contains information on title, appointment, salary, benefits, responsibilities, research funding, leave policies, and limitations or conditions and special arrangements (including joint or affiliate appointments). The tenure letter will be sent to the candidate following a successful review. Following a successful tenure review, the divisional dean/SEAS Dean will also meet with the faculty member to congratulate them and to share feedback from the review process. Among other things, the insights gained during the review process can help the divisional dean/SEAS Dean and faculty member to think together about ways that the faculty member can best contribute to Harvard’s mission, moving forward. |
17 |
Unless the candidate informs the deans of their intention to leave, the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs |
The Office for Faculty Development provides all documentation for processing.
|
Note: As mentioned at the start of Section 4A, some of the tasks in tenure reviews are performed by different individuals in, respectively, SEAS and the FAS divisions. Specifically:
- In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee (see Step 4 in the “Steps” table above).
- The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement (Steps 9 and 11) and signs the final case statement (Step 11).
- After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS (Step 10). Mentoring committee members who are not in SEAS are also invited to submit a confidential letter.
- If, at points in the tenure review process, it is determined that the case will not proceed, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS notifies the candidate in writing.
Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.
(3) Dossier Checklist: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position
REQUIRED CONTENTS
Note: Starting in Fall 2020, due to evolving Harvard campus conditions, please submit all dossier materials electronically. Hard-copy submission may possibly resume at a later time, depending on campus conditions.
TEXT ON FOLDER LABEL: [Candidate Name] [Department Name] |
|||||||
Section |
Text on Labeled Divider Tab |
Contents |
Number of Copies |
✓ |
|||
1 |
Case Statement |
See Step 11 above for details. Case statements must include a record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally. |
1 |
|
|||
2 |
Authorization and Review Start Letters |
|
1 1 |
|
|||
3 |
Curriculum vitae, Statements |
|
1
|
|
|||
|
|||||||
|
1 |
|
|||||
|
1 |
||||||
|
1 |
|
|||||
|
1 | ||||||
4 |
Teaching materials |
|
1 |
|
|||
|
1 |
|
|||||
|
1 |
|
|||||
|
1 |
|
|||||
Student evaluations of teaching are sent separately; see “Additional Materials” below. |
--- |
|
|||||
5 |
Expert Evaluations |
|
1
|
|
|||
|
1 |
|
|||||
|
1 |
||||||
|
1 |
|
|||||
|
1 |
|
|||||
6 |
Publication information |
|
1 |
|
|||
7 |
Citation information |
In table format (See Sample Citation Table), if appropriate to the field:
|
1
|
|
|||
Additional Materials |
|||||||
Item |
Contents |
Number of Copies |
✓ |
||||
Student Evaluations of Teaching |
All student evaluations from the Q, with each course bookmarked and named by year, semester, course title, course number. |
Separate from the dossier, 1 PDF sent electronically to assistant dean for the division |
|
||||
Publications, Reviews |
|
Separate from the dossier:
|
|
||||
(Optional) Candidate/Committee Communications |
|
|
|||||
Ad Hoc Information |
|||||||
Item |
Contents |
Number of Copies |
✓ |
||||
Information on the ad hoc committee |
Ad hoc committee membership recommendations in a list from the chair (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) that includes the following:
|
1 Excel document sent electronically to assistant dean for the division |
|
(4) Dossier Sample
(5) Dossier Instructions
Please Read Carefully before Submission of the Dossier:
a. CAP
The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews dossiers and makes recommendations to the Dean before the Dean decides whether to forward a dossier to the President for further review. CAP is scheduled to meet most Wednesdays during the academic year (the Office for Faculty Affairs will verify dates and times), and the dossiers are delivered to each CAP member two Fridays before the next meeting.
Note: A dossier is not submitted to CAP until the ad hoc coordinator has received a substantial number of the confidential letters written to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS by each tenured member of the department. Letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.
b. Submission of Materials to the Assistant Dean
The department should send the following items to the assistant dean for the division by March 1. If materials are received after this date, the case might not be scheduled for an ad hoc review until the following fall. This includes external appointments to tenured professor.
i. 1 electronic PDF of the dossiers
ii. Separate from the dossier, 1 electronic PDF of student teaching evaluations
iii. Separate from the dossier, 1 electronic PDF of publications and (in book fields) all significant reviews. (Articles, reviews, etc. should be included in this PDF. If available, digital copies of books should also be included.) In art-making fields, 1 electronic PDF (if available) of creative works and all significant reviews.
iv. 1 electronic Excel document (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) containing ad hoc committee membership recommendations
All electronic materials must be sent securely. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer (e.g., Accellion Kiteworks, encryption, etc.), which can vary by user platform. When preparing the dossier, please follow the naming conventions described below in Section d., “How to Prepare an Electronic Dossier,” to facilitate storing and sharing of files.
Once the assistant dean confirms that the dossier and materials are complete, the department then forwards to the ad hoc coordinator the materials listed in Section c., “Submission of Materials to the Ad Hoc Coordinator." CAP will be scheduled no sooner than two weeks after the final dossier is complete.
c. Submission of Materials to the Ad Hoc Coordinator
Please send 1 electronic PDF of the dossier to the ad hoc coordinator (ryoung@fas.harvard.edu):
Note: To preserve confidentiality, departments should not use external copy services to copy external letters and the case statement.
d. How to Prepare an Electronic Dossieri. The electronic dossier should be a single PDF document. Assemble the dossier with the seven sections (i.e., Case Statement; Authorization and Review Start Letters; Curriculum vitae, Statements; Teaching Materials; Expert Evaluations; Publication Information; Citation Information) arranged in the order shown in the sample in Section 4.A.4 (“Dossier Sample”) of this Handbook.
ii. Naming conventions:
- The file name of the electronic tenure dossier, the electronic student teaching evaluations, and the electronic publications should contain alpha-numeric characters only (no dashes, commas, slashes, etc.).
- Please name each of the files as follows: [Last Name] [First Name] [Department Name] [dossier component] [numerical Month, Date, and Year of dossier submission: XX YY ZZ]. E.g., Smith John Psychology tenure dossier 1 4 15, Smith John Psychology teaching evaluations 1 4 15, Smith John Psychology publications 1 4 15.
- If a dossier is revised and resubmitted, please repeat the original title, followed by “rev” and [Month of resubmission] [Date of resubmission] [Year of resubmission]. E.g., Smith John Psychology tenure dossier 1 4 15 rev 1 15 15, etc.
iii. Please securely send the completed dossier. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer (e.g., Accellion Kiteworks, encryption, etc.), which can vary by user platform.
e. How to Prepare a PDF of Student Evaluations of Teachingi. Please create a single PDF containing all student evaluations of teaching.
-
For evaluations prior to Fall 2019, please go to https://course-evaluation-reports.fas.harvard.edu/fas/list Select “Term” and click “Select another term” to update.
- Select department and click on a course.
-
“Print Full Reports" tab and download for each course:
- “Course Evaluation and Instructor/TF Summary” (Printable Version (PDF)
- Student Comments: go to “View Comments by Question” and select "Show Questions." Print out "Whole Course" option.
-
For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/results-2019-20-and-later. Click on “Results 2019-20 and later" and log in
.- Select the “Course Heads-Instructors report” for the specific year/term.
- Type the course number abbreviation (e.g. COMPSCI 50) in the “Search report title” field and click to search.
-
Download for each course:
- Select "View the {term} Individual Report -- Comments included report" and click on the course from the listing. Click the (PDF) icon next to the corresponding instructor to download the report.
Insert a bookmark for each course so that readers can move directly to individual courses. Clearly identify each course and its bookmark with the following information: course title, course number, semester and year. For more assembly instructions, please contact the divisional assistant dean with any questions.
ii. Please securely send the completed document. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer (e.g., Accellion Kiteworks, encryption, etc.), which can vary by user platform.Note: The candidate should not solicit student (or postdoc) letters, and any unsolicited student (or postdoc) letters will not be included in the dossier.
Departments should retain documents according to practices recommended by Harvard Archives at https://grs.harvard.edu/ (please log in).
(6) Suggested Timeline for Standard Academic-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor[2]
Note: Reviews for promotion should ordinarily be completed by the end of the penultimate year of appointment.
Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives.
In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.
Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. During this one-year extension, the faculty member would be eligible for one semester of teaching relief. (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”)
Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had seven years to work towards tenure. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way.
Note: In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee. The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement and signs the final case statement. After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS. Mentoring committee members who are not in SEAS are also invited to submit a confidential letter. Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.
June: Prior to the beginning of candidates’ penultimate year of appointment, chairs receive letters from the assistant dean for the division indicating which tenure-track faculty (both calendar-year and academic-year appointees) are eligible for review.
July 1: July 1 is the official start of the tenure review process. Proximate to July 1, the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them that this is the year of their tenure review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1, and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.
Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for candidates whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than October 1 (or the next business day) to notify their divisional assistant dean that they would like to have the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
In July: The chair and candidate meet to discuss the review process and the materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to submit all of their materials by September 1.
September 1 (or the next business day, if September 1 is a weekend or a holiday): Deadline for candidates to submit all of their materials to departments, and deadline for eligible candidates to notify their assistant dean that they would like the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
By early September:
- Department chairs request approval of review committee membership from divisional deans. After approval, chairs appoint the review committees.
- Departments compile summary teaching charts and gather materials on the candidates’ performance as advisors and mentors of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.
September/October:
- Review committees consider the candidates’ materials and present the cases to the departments. The tenured faculty members in the departments then discuss and decide whether the cases warrant further review.
- If the departments are recommending further review, the chairs request divisional dean authorization to collect evaluation letters, submitting for divisional dean approval drafts of the review letters to arm’s-length external letter writers, any solicitation letters to collaborators or mentors or “internal external” evaluators, proposed recipient lists, and (if departments choose to send initial inquiries) the initial inquiry emails.
- Departments send approved letters to approved recipient lists. Departments should give the arm’s-length external letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters (dating from the mailing of the review letter), depending on the volume of materials under review.
Early January: Expected date of replies from letter writers.
January/February:
- Tenured members of departments review dossiers and vote on whether to recommend promotions. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the tenured faculty in the department.
- If the recommendations are positive, departments finalize dossiers for submission to Faculty Affairs. Each tenured member of the department submits a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS regarding the case.
March 1: Deadline for submission of promotion dossiers to Faculty Affairs.
March-June: Review, as appropriate, by divisional deans, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, ad hoc committees, and the President, followed by notification to candidates about the outcomes.
(7) Suggested Timeline for Calendar-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor[3]
Note: Reviews for promotion should ordinarily be completed by the end of the penultimate year of appointment.
Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. In January 2022, given the continuing impact of the pandemic, the FAS provided the option of a third appointment extension, for any interested tenure-track faculty who have not yet had their review for promotion to tenure and who feel that an extension would help them to address Covid-related impacts on their professional lives.
In addition, the FAS stated in Spring 2021 that it will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. These eligible tenure-track faculty can take this course relief any time before they come up for tenure. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.
Moreover, effective July 1, 2023, tenure-track faculty who take a medical leave lasting eight weeks or longer (including medical leave associated with childbirth) will have the option to take a one-year extension to their current appointment as well. During this one-year extension, the faculty member would be eligible for one semester of teaching relief. (For more information, please see Chapter 3H, “Other Leaves (Family [including Parental], Medical, and Personal) and Extensions.”)
Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship without any penalty if the faculty member received teaching relief and/or appointment extension(s) due to the pandemic, medical, or parental leave. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated as if they had had seven years to work towards tenure. Similarly, and for example, if a tenure-track faculty member was given one course of teaching relief, they should be evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. Clock extensions and teaching relief related to the pandemic, medical leave, or parental leave should not be counted against candidates in any way.
Note: In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS appoints the review committee. The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement and signs the final case statement. After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS. Mentoring committee members who are not in SEAS are also invited to submit a confidential letter. Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.
June: Prior to the beginning of candidates’ penultimate year of appointment, chairs receive letters from the assistant dean for the division indicating which tenure-track faculty (both calendar-year and academic-year appointees) are eligible for review.
January 1: January 1 is the official start of the tenure review process. Proximate to January 1, the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them that this is the year of their tenure review, that January 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by March 1, and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.
Note: If March 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, March 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for candidates whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than April 1 (or the next business day) to notify their divisional assistant dean that they would like to have the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
In January: The chair and candidate meet to discuss the review process and the materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to submit all of their materials by March 1.
March 1 (or the next business day, if March 1 is a weekend or a holiday): Deadline for candidates to submit all of their materials to departments, and deadline for eligible candidates to notify their assistant dean that they would like the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.
By early March:
- Department chairs request approval of review committee membership from divisional deans. After approval, chairs appoint the review committees.
- Departments compile summary teaching charts and gather materials on the candidates’ performance as advisors and mentors of undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.
March/April:
- Review committees consider the candidates’ materials and present the cases to the departments. The tenured faculty members in the department then discuss and decide whether the cases warrant further review.
- If the departments are recommending further review, the chairs request divisional dean authorization to collect evaluation letters, submitting for divisional dean approval drafts of the review letters to arm’s-length external letter writers, any solicitation letters to collaborators or mentors or “internal external” letter writers, proposed recipient lists, and (if departments choose to send initial inquiries) the initial inquiry emails.
- Departments send approved letters to approved recipient lists. Departments should give the arm’s-length external letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters (dating from the mailing of the review letter), depending on the volume of materials under review.
August: Expected date of replies from letter writers.
September:
- Tenured members of departments review dossiers and vote on whether to recommend promotions. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the tenured faculty in the department.
- If the recommendations are positive, departments finalize dossiers for submission to Faculty Affairs. Each tenured member of the department submits a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS regarding the case.
October 1: Deadline for submission of promotion dossiers to Faculty Affairs.
October-December: Review, as appropriate, by divisional deans, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, ad hoc committees, and the President, followed by notification to candidates about the outcomes.
[1] During a candidate’s review for promotion to tenured professor, the department may take into consideration how the candidate defines their field when the department puts together the materials for the candidate’s dossier, but the department can change the field definition as they deem appropriate.